Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin · WIN
The WIN Initiative
FHG-internal · do not forward.
AHW · The WIN Initiative

Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin · The WIN Initiative · FHG-internal

Prove it.
Then grow it.

WIN is Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin's cardiovascular initiative — bringing high blood pressure under control across four Wisconsin health systems. Two questions decide whether it becomes the way the state cares for its people: can we prove it works, and can we grow it to the counties that need it most.

The mandate

Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin

Funds WIN and carries the mandate to reach all 72 counties across three pillars. It needs to know its investment is working.

The study

WIN clinical team

MCW cardiology sets the protocol, the endpoints, and the criteria for control.

The economics

The health plans

Molina, Chorus, and their peers are where the sustaining dollars come from — the buyers who pay for prevention once it is proven.

The measurement

Forward Health Group

Builds the comparison group and the measurement that turn the work into evidence AHW and the plans can hold.

The Goal

Show AHW that its investment in WIN is working.

The reason the study exists.

AHW funds WIN to make Wisconsin healthier. The question every funder reaches is whether the dollars are doing anything — and WIN is built to answer it with evidence, not a report: a designed study, a real comparison group, and a measurement that makes the result plain.

There are only two pools of money large enough to sustain coordinated preventive care — Pharma and the health plans. WIN gives the plans a reason to act, in their own terms of MLR and PMPM: buying prevention costs less than buying discounted procedures.

01 · The Study

The endpoints, and the comparison group built from data AHW already has

Prove both points and the case is made.

Primary endpoint

More patients at goal

The share of enrolled patients who reach their blood-pressure goal, against a comparison group — anchored to the emerging HEDIS-style measure: 80% of patients below systolic 130, 80% of the time.

Secondary endpoint

Get them there faster

Reaching goal faster than conventional therapy — even where WIN's approach takes more hands. Get people there, and keep them there.

The comparison group decides whether the study is credible

Because WIN is not randomized, the comparison has to be a propensity-matched group of patients at the same four health systems, matched on as many clinical variables as possible. FHG builds it from data already collected across all four: take the roughly 5,000 WIN-enrolled patients (de-identified), find 7,500–10,000 matched patients, and compare per system, per physician, per clinic, or across the whole program.

A comparison group that already exists in the data is faster, less costly, and more credible than one recruited from scratch.

02 · The Measurement

Not just whether WIN works — why

Transparent in its calculation. No black boxes.

The endpoints show whether the model works. The measurement shows why — and it is the part AHW does not have on its own. It begins with one idea: the presence or absence of a working clinical network, measured as the collapse of access.

The two markers

ED visits and hospitalizations. When they rise, access is thinning.

The prevention-credit lens

Does a patient come through the door and ever reach preventive care — or only reactive care? Give every bit of prevention full credit.

The tether score

Count the touches and the hand-offs. A one-time visit, or a real attempt at ongoing coordinated care?

The Coordinated Care Number

A clear index — across and within systems — of how well a patient got into coordinated care. Built from clinical data, claims, and the EHR record.

Engagement comes before gap-closure: did the right patients actually get seen and stay in care. It has to come first, before any Stars or HEDIS gain.

The measures divide into what improved (outcomes) and what produced it (drivers). FHG works between the health systems and the plans so both read the same numbers. The economics translate through MLR and PMPM — the plans' own terms.

03 · WIN Rural

The same model, where access has already collapsed

Reaching every county is AHW's mandate — and the rural counties are where WIN matters most.

In most rural communities the hospital is the largest employer, and most of its revenue is Medicaid. Cut it and the decline is quick — the clinic goes, then the storefronts, and the county becomes a care desert. More than half of Wisconsin's counties are already a 50-to-75-mile drive from an OB. The rural-transformation money on offer is a fraction of what is being taken out. And rural facilities chase the same high-margin procedure revenue as everyone else — the robotic-surgery billboard on the county highway.

The rural hospital does not need to become something else. It needs to stay the community anchor — and be paid to.

One move, both sides win

The health plan · cost ↓ access ↑

Grow membership, lower spend

A plan like Molina wants to grow into the county. Steer the members who need coordinated care toward prevention, and the avoidable ED and hospital use that drives spend comes down — a lower PMPM on a population that is otherwise scattered and unmanaged.

The rural hospital · base + a layer

Keep the base, add prospective payment

Nothing it bills today changes. On top of fee-for-service, a prospective per-member payment brings steady cash — enough to fund a nurse and the programs the community needs, so the hospital can be the anchor instead of chasing procedures.

The engine: three payments, one person

The same three-payment model applies cleanly to the rural county. Nothing is taken away — a layer is added.

CPT

The visit

Fee-for-service, unchanged. The claims keep flowing exactly as they do today.

DRG

The stay

The hospital episode, paid the way it always has been.

CRG

The person

A prospective, risk-adjusted payment for the whole person, plus a share of the savings as avoidable use falls. This is the payment that lets the rural hospital be the anchor.

Seed what's real, then steer

Seed · the county

~4,200–4,600

plan lives in the county — a couple of primary-care panels.

Steer · the cohort

~750–850

who need coordinated care — the cardiovascular and hypertension group WIN measures from day one.

Care reaches patients where they already are: monitoring runs through the smartphone, a quarterly truck brings labs to the driveway, a community health worker visits the house. The monitoring and medication adjustment can be handled from anywhere. The model already exists — the Detroit street clinics that took company trucks into the neighborhoods for hypertension and chronic kidney disease. Start with hypertension, then add cholesterol, weight, and diabetes — all remote. And once the data shows what a willing community health center does next to its neighbors, the FQHCs sign up.

Illustrative · figures to be set
$X.X B
plan spend / yr on ~82,000 Wisconsin lives
$X,XXX
approx. PMPM today
$XXX
prospective PMPM to the rural hospital
~$XXXK
per month to fund a nurse + programs

Placeholders, to be priced off the plan's own claims. A modest per-member monthly payment on a much larger existing spend funds the anchor role — and avoids the long ambulance trips, the med-flights, and the observation stays that cost far more.

04 · The AHW Path

Why WIN Rural is a single meeting, not a nine-month wait

How AHW's own rules make the expansion fast.

Cardiovascular disease is already one of AHW's three pillars. So a rural expansion of WIN uses a lane AHW already has.

WIN Rural as a cardiovascular expansion takes a single consortium meeting to approve.
×
A brand-new pillar — say, maternal and infant care — would take nine to twelve months.

So the move is to keep WIN Rural inside the cardiovascular work AHW already funds. Make it about AHW — reaching all 72 counties, in the spirit of the endowment's founding mandate — with the health plans, not a monthly AHW check, paying for it. Build the interest now, so the counties that want in are ready when the door opens.

05 · What's Next

The next moves — and the conversation they lead to

Small, concrete, and owned.

The October 7 conversation

This sets out, for AHW's interim leadership, what WIN has proven and where it can go — the value the model shows, and the counties it can still reach.

About Forward Health Group

The measurement partner.

Forward Health Group has spent two decades making populations legible — turning claims and clinical records into a working picture of who needs what, and showing what changed. For WIN, that is the comparison group and the measurement: the evidence AHW and the health plans can hold.

PopulationCompass
Claims · the population view where claims are available.
PopulationManager
Clinical · the record made actionable for the care team.
ClinicianPulse
EHR record · the coordination work made visible.